Abstract
Internal debates over the status and aims of archaeology—between processualists and post or anti-processualists—have been so sharply adversarial, and have generated such sharply polarized positions, that they obscure much common ground. Despite strong rhetorical opposition, in practice, all employ a range of strategies for building and assessing the empirical credibility of their claims that reveals a common commitment to some form of mitigated objectivism. To articulate what this comes to, an account is given of how archaeological data may be ‘laden with theory’ constructed as evidence—and yet still function as an independent constraint on interpretation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References Cited
Bender, Barbara, “Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 12–14.
Binford, Lewis R., “Objectivity—Explanation—Archaeology 1981,” in Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Colin Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, and B. A. Segraves, Academic Press, New York, 1982, pp. 125–138.
Binford, Lewis R., Working at Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, 1983.
Binford, Lewis R., Debating Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, 1989.
Binford, Lewis R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff, “Paradigms, Systematics, and Archaeology,” Journal of Anthropological Research 38(1982): 137–153.
Feyerabend, Against Method, revised edition, Verso, London, 1988.
Galison, Peter, How Experiments End, University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Galison, Peter, “Multiple Constraints, Simultaneous Solutions,” PSA 1988 Volume 2, edited by A. Fine and J. Leplin, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, 1988, pp. 157–163.
Gould, Richard A, Living Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.
Grayson, Donald K., “Eoliths, Archaeological Ambiguity, and the Generation of ‘Middle-Range’ Research,” in American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by David J. Meltzer, Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabloff, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986, pp. 135–162.
Hacking, Ian, Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
Hacking, Ian, “Philosophers of Experiment,” PSA 1988 Volume 2, edited by A. Fine and J. Leplin, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, 1988, 147–156.
Hodder, Ian (editor), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
Hodder, Ian, “Archaeology, Ideology and Contemporary Society,” Royal Anthropological Institute News 56(1983): 6–7.
Hodder, Ian, “Archaeology in 1984,” Antiquity 58 (1984): 25–32.
Hodder, Ian, “Post-Processual Archaeology,” in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 8, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, Academic Press, 1985, pp. 1–26.
Hodder, Ian, Reading the Past, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
Hodder, Ian, “Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 15–18.
Hodder, Ian, “Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role” American Antiquity, 56.1 (1991): 7–18.
Kosso, Peter, “Dimensions of Observability,” British Journal of Philosophy of Science 39 (1988): 449–467.
Kosso, Peter, “Science and Objectivity,” Journal of Philosophy 86 (1989): 245–257.
Longino, Helen, “Political Dimensions of Epistemological Critiques,” Part I of “Conflicts and Tensions in the Feminist Study of Gender and Science,” in Conflicts in Feminism, edited by Marianne Hirsch and Evelyn Fox Keller, Routledge, 1990, 165–176.
Olsen, Bjorner, “Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 18–21.
Renfrew, Colin, “Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 33–41.
Schiffer, Michael B., “Toward the Identification of Formation Processes,” American Antiquity 48 (1983): 675–706.
Shapere, Dudley, “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy,” Philosophy of Science 49 (1982): 485–525.
Shapere, Dudley, “Observation and the Scientific Enterprise,” in Observation, Experiment, and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Science, edited by P. Achinstein and O. Hannaway, MIT Press, 1985, pp. 22–45.
Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley, “Ideology, Symbolic Power, and Ritual Communication: A Reinterpretation of Neolithic Mortuary Practices,” in Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 129–154.
Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley, Re-constructing Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley, “Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 1–14
Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley, “Questions Rather Than Answers: Reply to Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 42–54.
Tilley, Christopher, “Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Middle Neolithic of Southern Sweden,” in Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited by Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984, pp. 111–146.
Trigger, B. G., “Comments on Archaeology Into the 1990s,” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22.1(1989): 28–31.
Watson, Patty Jo, “Archaeological Interpretation, 1985,” in American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by David J. Meltzer, Don D. Fowler, and Jeremy A. Sabloff, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986, pp. 439–458.
Weitzenfeld, Julian S., “Valid Reasoning by Analogy,” Philosophy of Science 51 (1984): 137–149.
Wylie, Alison, “The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests: Recent Archaeological Work on Gender,” American Antiquity 57 (1992): 15–34.
Wylie, Alison, “The Reaction Against Analogy,” in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 8, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, New York, Academic Press, 1985, pp. 63–111.
Wylie, Alison, “‘Simple’ Analogy and the Role of Relevance Assumptions: Implications of Archaeological Practice,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2.2(1988): 134–150.
Wylie, Alison, “The Interpretive Dilemma,” in Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, edited by Valerie Pinsky and Alison Wylie, Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 18–27.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wylie, A. (1992). On “Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings”: Scientific Method in Archaeology and the Ladening of Evidence with Theory. In: Embree, L. (eds) Metaarchaeology. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 147. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1826-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1826-2_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-4806-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-1826-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive